1.18.2008

Nevada Democrats are getting their due. Despite their caucus being scheduled to join Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina in the January line-up, no one paid any attention to them for months with barely any polling of the race being conducted. But with Obama and Clinton splitting the first two contests, Nevada has become very important -- and we have very little idea of what is going to happen tomorrow. Clinton has been leading in the few polls released this week but we can't trust Nevada polling given that no one has any idea what the turnout will be. Which makes tomorrow's vote that much more exciting.

Today, the two controversies I wrote about yesterday (Obama's Reagan comments and the UNITE ad against Clinton) continued to be the main topic of discussion on the campaign trial.

Let's start the UNITE ad which attacked Clinton's character, accusing her of seeking to suppress voting and calling her "shameless." John Edwards rushed to get involved today. You might remember that back in Iowa, Obama made a big deal of the fact that independent groups (in particular unions) were getting involved on behalf of Clinton and Edwards -- and the ads they ran were generally positive. Now, Edwards is attacking Obama for the same reason, asking why the IL Senator is not condemning an ad that Edwards called "divisive."

And this only a day after Edwards went after Obama for the comments the Senator made about Ronald Reagan, a curious dynamic in which Edwards is rushing to Clinton's rescue. After Iowa, Edwards was trying to bury Clinton and boost Barack, but now that Hillary is clearly going to be in the race all the way until February 5th, Edwards's adversary is first and foremost Obama.

And today, it is the Clinton camp that was all over the Reagan comments. Barney Frank was among the first to go on the offensive, and it is worth quoting him at length because he is arguing that Obama's search for common ground with Reagan was not just on leadership style and that there was something substantive he compared himself to:

When I think about the 60s and the 70s, I think about Medicaid, Medicare, the Environmental Protection Agency, Community Development Block Grants...It's astounding to me to have this blanket endorsement of a right wing attack... When he says government in effect grew too much in the 60s and 70s...Reagan agreed with that. This is not simply a tribute to Ronald Reagan's rhetoric but an endorsement of some of the substance.

After Hillary Clinton also went after Obama for saying that Republican had "better ideas" (which Obama didn't really say), Bill jumped in: "It goes along with their plan to ask Republicans to become Democrats for a day and caucus with you tomorrow, and then go back and become Republicans so they can participate in the Republican primary." This is a criticism that the Clintons started airing after Iowa, charging that Obama was relying too much on the vote of non-Democrats to win the primary.

The response of Obama's spokesman Bill Burton came quickly: “It’s hard to take Hillary Clinton’s latest attack seriously when she’s the one who supported George Bush’s war in Iraq, the most damaging Republican idea of our generation." A way of reminding Democratic voters that, when it comes to what the two candidates have actually done and advocated, Clinton has drifted much closer to Republican ideas and GOP substance than Obama.

Another element playing against Clinton in this controversy is this press release from December 12th on her website that contains an editorial by a NH press group that endorsed her. This editorial claims that Reagan is one of Clinton's favorite presidents: "Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks." This does not tell us, of course, whether Clinton simply admires Reagan's leadership or something more substantive, but the question should at least be addressed.

For some more context, Marc Ambinder reminds us of this excerpt from an interview he conducted a few months back with Marty Nesbitt, one of Obama's best friends. Nesbitt told Ambinder that Obama had cited Reagan among the figures he admired the most: "Barack told me, no, he really had something that inspired the company and brought it together. I may disagree with him on policy, but he was what American needed at that moment in history." That's a rather strong statement on Obama's part, and it certainly begs the question of whether he voted for Reagan in 1980 if he truly thought that Reagan was "what America needed."

Is this supposed to be fact-based analysis? Clinton supporters literally use the big lie technique: if you repeat an untruth long enough, it becomes the accepted version, leaving it up to others to disprove it. (Take a look at their scurrilous behavior with reproductive rights issues.)

Barack made a simple statement about other historical figures who relied on the ability to galvanize sentiment as a way of rebutting the argument that vision is of less use than practical political skills. Go find me one statement that he was equating himself with either. That led to Ms. Clinton's terrible gaffe, linking and subordinating MLK's vision to LBJ's Inside-the-Beltway abilities, followed by WJC's "fairy tale" remarks and Cuomo's 'shuck and jive'.

The initial reaction didn't come from Obama, it came from Clyburn of SC, Donna Brazille (a close Clinton friend BTW) and leaders in the AA community. Obama by and large stood away from this back-and-forth, as did his campaign.

No rational observer thinks these folks are racist. What their behavior does suggest however is a tacit assumption that the movers and shakers within the political system bring the real value-added to the process: without them, it's all just talk. I'm not AA, but I can intuitively understand how that thinking can be offensive when applied to one of the icons of AA history, who was totally outside the existing political system. That's the thrust of the comments.

I'd be most interested if you can point us to any direct accusation of racism by Barack. The universal comment (to quote Brazille, I believe) is that in dealing with these analogies one has to think carefully about the unspoken assumption.

In inimitable Clinton style, her campaign has made her the victim of non-existent accusations of racism. This is characteristic of her and her husband - a total unwillingness to accept responsibility for anything. It's always someone else's fault, never theirs. That act is getting very old.

About Campaign Diaries

Campaign Diaries is devoted to extensive political analysis and news roundup of anything related to American politics and elections.

Campaign Diaries will feature constant updates on the latest news from the campaign trail and on the meaning of the latest polls and events. Will be covered the presidential and congressional races, with regular updates to the Senate, House and Governor Rankings.